AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This order shall govern the following four revisions namely CRP Nos. 477/93, 3486/95 and 2027 and 2047/98. All
these revisions have arisen as follows.
The landlords filed RCOP No. 2032/86 on the ground of own use and occupation against the tenant mentioned therein. The said RCOP on
enquiry was allowed. The tenant took it on appeal in RCA No. 310/89 before the appellate authority namely the VII Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Madras. On enquiry, the same was allowed. Then, the landlords have brought forth the revision in CRP No. 477/93.
RCOP No. 2087/89 was filed by the petitioners therein who were the landlords. They filed the said petition for eviction on the ground of own
use and occupation. On enquiry, the same was allowed. The aggrieved tenants took it on appeal in RCA No. 878/92, and on enquiry, the same
was allowed. Then, there arose a revision in CRP No. 3486/95 at the instance of the landlords.
RCOP No. 2612/89 was filed by the tenant u/s 9(3) of the Act for deposit of rental. On enquiry, the same was dismissed. Therefrom RCA No.
491/93 was made by the landlords. On dismissal of the same, the landlords have brought forth the revision in CRP No. 2047/98.
The last RCOP No. 858/90 was filed by the petitioners therein who were the landlords, for eviction on the grounds of willful default and denial
of title by the tenants two in number. On enquiry, the same was dismissed. Therefrom, the landlords made RCA No. 541/94. On dismissal of the
same, CRP No. 2027/98 has been brought forth by the landlords. Thus, the above four revisions have arisen before this Court.
After looking into the materials available, it is seen that the matters are inter-linked, and the parties in all these proceedings are common. Under
the circumstances, the Court thought it fit to give a common order in all these revisions.
As far as CRP No. 2027/98 is concerned, RCOP No. 858/90 was filed by the petitioners therein stating that they are the owners of the
premises described in the petition for eviction; that they purchased the property from one Santhanam by way of a sale deed in the year 1989; that
they have become the owners of the property; that the respondents who are the tenants in respect of the two shops mentioned therein, have been
making the payment of rental to the original owner Santhanam; that they have attorned the tenancy with them, and thus, they are the tenants under
the present landlords who are the petitioners in the RCOP; that under the circumstances, they are liable to make the payment of rental to them; that
on service of notice, they have also denied the title of the landlords, and hence, they were to be evicted on the grounds of willful default and denial
of title. The respondents therein resisted the petition stating that the property belonged to Muthukumarasamy Temple; that the said Santhanam was
never the owner of the property; that there was no privity of contract between them on the one part and Santhanam on the other; that they have
been making the payment of rental to the owner of the property namely the Temple; that under the circumstances, there was no jural relationship of
landlord-tenant between the parties, and hence, the petition was to be dismissed. On enquiry, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The
landlords took it on appeal referred to above, and it was also dismissed. Under the circumstances, the landlords have brought forth the said
revision before this Court.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in CRP No. 2027/98 would submit that the property originally belonged to
one Santhanam; that the respondents herein were under him as tenants; that they have been making payment of rental; that the property never
belonged to the temple; that the property has been now purchased by the present petitioners; that now, they became the owners of the property
from the time of sale in the year 1989; that under the circumstances, they are entitled to get the rent as envisaged under the Act as they are the
landlords; that after the issuance of notice, they brought forth the petition for eviction; that both the forums below have passed an order dismissing
the eviction petition and holding that there was no jural relationship; but, it was not so; that the property originally belonged to Santhanam which
was an admitted fact; that if to be so, now, the owners are the present petitioners-landlords; that they are entitled to collect the rent, and hence, it is
a fit case where eviction should have been ordered.
In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in the instant case, there was no jural relationship; that
the same was not established at all, and under the circumstances, both the authorities below were perfectly correct in dismissing the petition.
After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision in CRP No. 2027/98 does
not carry any merit whatsoever. The main contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeking eviction on the grounds of
willful default and denial of title, was that they were the owners of the property which was purchased by them from one Santhanam in the year
1989; that these respondents were originally tenants under Santhanam; that after the purchase, the petitioners have become the owners, and thus,
they are entitled to collect the rent from them; and that there was a notice served upon them informing the same and calling upon them to make
payment of rental, but not done so. In the instant case, all the materials available are thoroughly looked into by the Court. There is not even any
iota of evidence to show that they have ever paid any rental at all to Santhanam previously or attorned the present petitioners as landlords in
respect of the property. But, on the contrary, there was evidence to show that in respect of the shops two in number, occupied by the
respondents, who are also two in number, they have been making payment of rental to the temple, and it was brought forth by sufficient evidence.
In the absence of anything to indicate that either they recognized the said Santhanam as the owner of the property, or there was any jural
relationship between the respondents on the one hand and the said Santhanam on the other, the present petitioners cannot claim that by way of
purchase, they have become the owners of the property, and they are entitled to recover the rent. In the instant case, there was no jural
relationship between the petitioners as landlords and the respondents as tenants, and the same has not been proved, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Counsel for the respondents. In the absence of the same, this Court is afraid whether it can accept the contention put forth by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the revision in CRP No. 2027 of 2989 requires an order of dismissal in the hands of
this Court. Accordingly, CRP No. 2027 of 1998 is dismissed. No costs.
Insofar as the other three revisions are concerned, they are actually inter-linked to each other. The petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86, who are
the landlords, filed the petition on the ground of own use and occupation alleging that the respondent therein is actually a tenant under them; that the
property is situated in No. 48, Devaraja Mudali Street; that the respondent is carrying on a bunk there on payment of rental; that he has been
making so in the past to the petitioners recognizing them as owners and landlords also; that the first petitioner is carrying on his coffee business in
No. 219, Mint Street; that it is a rented premises; that the owner of that premises is requiring more than Rs. 500/- as rent; that under the
circumstances, the premises in question is required for carrying on his own business; that that the landlords are not owning any other property
where they could carry on the business, and under the circumstances, the eviction was to be ordered. The said petition was resisted by the tenant
stating that the petition lacked thoroughly bonafide; that apart from that, the first petitioner is not carrying on his coffee business; that the
measurement of the property which is under the occupation of the tenant, is only 36 sq. ft.; that what is required for carrying on the coffee stall is
10"" x 10""; but, the said space was insufficient to carry on the business; that it is true that they are not having any other property of their own; that as
far as the other property where the tenant is carrying on his business is concerned, he has purchased the property; that when he purchased the
property, he filed a RCOP for eviction of the present landlords, where they would state that the property did not belong to the respondent, but
belonged to the Temple, and under the circumstances, they should not be evicted; that the allegation that there was an attempt by the landlords to
evict them and also they are asking for more than Rs. 500/- as rent was nothing but a falsity; that under the circumstances, it lacked thoroughly
bonafide; that there was no need or requirement as put forth by the landlords, and hence, the petition was to be dismissed.
The respondent in RCOP No. 2032/86 along with others filed the other petition in RCOP No. 2087/89 for eviction on the same ground of
own use and occupation. The landlords therein have brought forth that petition stating that the property originally belonged to one Santhanam; that
they have purchased the property in the year 1989, and thus, they have become the owners of the property; that the respondents therein attorned
the tenancy; that they have been making payment of rental from the time of the purchase till July 1989; that under the circumstances, they are the
landlords in respect of the property; that the respondents therein are the tenants; that the property in 219, Mint Street, is having an extent of 40 sq.
ft.; that the respondents therein are occupying that property for their own use and occupation; that they are carrying on the business in 48,
Devaraja Mudali Street, which belonged to the landlords; that they have filed RCOP No. 2032/86; that under the circumstances, the landlords
required the premises for their own use and occupation, and hence, the tenants have got to be evicted. The petition was resisted by the tenants
stating that the property did not belong to the landlords; that originally, it belonged to the Temple; that actually, there was a kattalai, pursuant to
which all the income therefrom were used only for the purpose of performing the kattalai for which Santhanam was also using the same as trustee;
that he had no iota of right over the property; that he could not convey the property; that however, he sold the property in favour of the present
petitioners; that they could not make any claim over the property; that under the circumstances, the temple is the owner of the property; that there
is actually a dispute questioning the title of the property; that it has got to be decided by a Court of civil law; that till the time, there is no question of
payment of rental to the petitioners that would arise; that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, and hence, the petition was to be
dismissed.
Both the petitions in RCOP Nos. 2032/86 and 2087/89 were taken up for enquiry along with the third petition in RCOP No. 2612/89. That
petition was filed by the first respondent in RCOP No. 2087/89 wherein he wanted to make deposit of the rental u/s 9(3) of the Act alleging that
he is a tenant in respect of the premises in No. 219, Mint Street and making the payment of rental; that for sometime, Santhanam was collecting the
rental; that Santhanam was actually a trustee of the temple; that he was getting the money for doing certain performance of the kattalai; that it was
not his property; that there was a notice served upon him by the respondents-landlords alleging that they purchased the property; but, he was
making payment of rental for a few months; that thereafter, there was a notice that emanated from the temple; that the temple claimed that the
property belonged to the temple, and thus, the rent should be paid only to the temple; that under the circumstances, there arose a necessity for
filing a petition to deposit the same before the Court u/s 9(3) of the Act since it is not known to whom the rent has got to be paid; that he should
not be melted with any liability of payment of rental; that however, it is made to a wrong person, and under the circumstances, the petition is filed.
The petition was resisted by the landlords stating that they have purchased the property from Santhanam in 1989; that Santhanam was the owner
of the property before purchase; that till July 1989, the payments have been made only to the present landlords; that there was an attornment; that
apart from that, there was recognition of the landlord-tenant relationship; that under the circumstances, the tenant namely the petitioner herein, was
estopped from questioning the same; that he has made the payment only to the landlords, and hence, the petition was to be dismissed.
On enquiry, the learned Rent Controller allowed RCOP No. 2032/86. The tenant took it on appeal in RCA No. 310/89, and the same was
also allowed. Then, the landlords have brought forth CRP No. 477/93. Equally, RCOP No. 2087/89 was allowed. The aggrieved tenants took it
on appeal in RCA No. 878/92, and the appeal was allowed. Therefrom, the landlords have brought forth CRP No. 3486 of 1995. As far as
RCOP No. 2612/89 filed u/s 9(3) of the Act for depositing the rental was concerned, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The landlords
took it on appeal in RCA No. 491/93, and the same was also dismissed. Thus, CRP No. 2047/98 has arisen at the instance of the landlords.
Originally, there was a direction given to the tenants to make payment of rental directly to the fifth respondent therein namely the temple. Thus, all
these three revisions have arisen.
Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners in CRP No. 477/93, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant
case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners in the original RCOP are the landlords of the property; that the ownership of the landlords is never
disputed by the tenant; that the tenant has been making payment of rental; that it is also an admitted position that the first petitioner is carrying on
his business in a shop on rental basis; that under the circumstances, the present premises is required for carrying on his own business; that there
cannot be any impediment at all; that the contentions levelled against the landlords that the petition lacked bonafide, and there was no need at all
are all simply imaginary; that the requirement has also been proved, and under the circumstances, eviction order has got to be passed.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in CRP No. 477/93 would submit that the shop is only measuring 36 sq. ft.; that it is
true that the tenant is actually occupying the same for carrying on his petty shop, where a tea stall cannot be conducted by the petitioners; that the
first petitioner is actually carrying on his business in the other premises which is also subject matter in the other revision in CRP No. 3486/95; that
in the petition filed in RCOP No. 2087/89, the respondents therein, who are the petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86, raised a contention that an
order of eviction could not be passed since the petitioners in RCOP No. 2087/89 were not the owners of the property which belonged to the
temple; but, they have raised such a contention; that there was lack of bonafide; that if RCOP No. 2032/86 is allowed granting an order of
eviction, where they thoroughly lacked bonafide, they will have both the properties continued to be in their possession, which cannot be permitted;
that in this case, one is the landlord, and the other is the tenant denying the title of the landlord, and under the circumstances, it must be dismissed.
As far as CRP No. 3486/95 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the instant case, the RCOP was
filed on the ground of personal use and occupation; that it is also an admitted position that the first petitioner is actually carrying on his business in a
shop which belonged to the petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86; that under the circumstances, they have also filed a petition for eviction; that in the
case on hand, so long as the petitioners are able to show that the first petitioner is carrying on his business in some other rented premises, there
cannot be any impediment for granting the relief; that apart from that, the contention raised by the respondents that the property belonged to the
temple, and Santhanam, who sold the property, had no iota of right in the property, is nothing but imaginary; that there were civil proceedings
between the parties where the property has been found to be one belonging to the ancestors of the said Santhanam, and thus, he was competent to
execute the sale deed which conveyed the title to the property. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the present tenants who have
challenged the order of eviction on that ground, have made the payment of rental till July 1989, and thus, not only they have attorned the tenancy,
but also they are estopped from questioning the ownership of the petitioners herein or their status as landlords, and hence, eviction has got to be
ordered.
In reply to the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in CRP No. 3486/95 would submit that it is true that the
property was purchased by the landlords from Santhanam; but, Santhanam is not actually the owner of the property; but, he was recovering the
rental only on behalf of the temple; that even it is an admitted position that the kattalai is being performed from and out of the rental income; that
now Santhanam had no right to sell the property dedicated for a kattalai; that under the circumstances, even the sale deed would not convey any
title; that now, the temple has also issued a notice that the temple is the owner of the property, and hence, the rent must be paid to the temple; that
there is also an order of the Rent Controller that the rental amounts have got to be paid only to the temple; that in this case, there is no question of
jural relationship between the parties; that it is true that for a few months from the time of the purchase, the amounts were paid to the present
landlords; that it was only a sheer mistake; that merely because of the payment for a few months, it cannot be now stated that they have recognized
the ownership; that immediately after the notice was served upon them, it came to the knowledge of the tenants that the present petitioners were
not the landlords; that the property originally belonged to the temple of which Santhanam was acting as trustee; that he was collecting rental
payment on behalf of the temple; that the same is being used for the kattalai performance, and under the circumstances, the appellate authority was
perfectly correct in dismissing the RCOP, and therefore, that order has got to be affirmed.
The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rival submissions made.
The petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86 have come forward with a petition u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act alleging that they are the owners of the
property measuring 36 sq. ft. situated in No. 48, Devaraja Mudali Street. The ownership of the property is not questioned by the opposite party,
who is the first petitioner in RCOP No. 2087/89, and he has also recognized them as landlords, and he has been making payment of rental. These
are all admitted facts. Now, the petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86 seeks an order of eviction on the grounds that the first petitioner is carrying on
his coffee business in the premises situated in No. 219, Mint Street, on a rental basis; that there was a petition filed for eviction; that apart from
that, the owner of that rented property was asking more than Rs. 500/- per month as rent; that there was all likelihood of the first petitioner being
evicted, and under the circumstances, in order to carry on his own business, the present property is required. After looking into the materials
available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners in RCOP No. 2032/86 have not proved the bonafide, the basic requirement
for a petition for eviction u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Admittedly, the first petitioner in RCOP No. 2032/86 is carrying on his business in No. 219,
Mint Street, which is having an extent of 40 sq.ft., wherein he is running the coffee business. Now, the reason adduced by them for getting an order
of eviction is that the first petitioner wants to take his business to the other property which is situated in No. 48, Devaraja Mudali Street, which
belonged to them originally. There cannot be any impediment for a person to carry on his business in his own property and that too, in a case
where he is carrying on his business in a rented premises. Now, at this juncture, the bonafide of the petitioners will have the main role to play. In
the instant case, if the bonafide of the petitioners is looked into, it would indicate that so long as the first petitioner continues to be tenant in No.
219, Mint Street, to carry on his coffee business, the present property would not be required. As far as RCOP No. 2087/89 was concerned, the
respondents therein resisted that petition for eviction filed by the landlords, of whom one Mani is the respondent-tenant in RCOP No. 2032/86,
stating that the property did not belong to the landlords; that it belonged to the temple; that there was no necessity at all; that all these contentions
are not at all maintainable; and that they need not make payment of rental to the petitioners therein. Thus, it would be quite clear that as far as
RCOP No. 2032/86 was concerned, the petitioners as landlords, would claim that the first petitioner is likely to be evicted from the said property
which is the subject matter of RCOP No. 2087/89, and therefore, they must be given possession of this property. But, on the contrary, they have
taken a defence as put forth in the above RCOP No. 2087/89. Till the matter in RCOP No. 2087/89 where they question the title of the property,
comes to a finality, no question of evicting them would arise. Under the circumstances, though the first petitioner in RCOP No. 2032/86 is running
his business in the other shop on rental basis, and they require the present premises for their own use, so long as the bonafide is not made out,
there is no question of evicting them from the other premises that would arise. So long as the title to the property in RCOP No. 2087/89 is
decided, the same would not arise at all. In such circumstances, the order passed by the appellate authority in RCA No. 310/89 whereby the
petition filed by the landlords was dismissed, has got to be affirmed. Accordingly, it is affirmed. The contention put forth by the tenant has got to be
accepted.
As regards RCOP No. 2087/89, in the instant case, the landlords wanted the property for their own use and occupation alleging that they have
purchased the property situated in No. 219, Mint Street, from one Santhanam. They would further add that the tenants have made payments
recognizing them as landlords and attorned tenancy; that they have made the payment of rental till July 1989, and thus, they require the premises
for their own use and occupation at present, since there is a threat of eviction from the landlord in respect of the premises in No. 48, Devaraja
Mudali Street, where the first petitioner is running his business. That petition was resisted by the opposite party stating that the property belonged
to the temple; that it never belonged to Santhanam or to the present landlords. Under the circumstances, there is a bonafide denial of title, and so
long as the title is decided, they could not make the payment of rental. Added circumstance is that the first respondent in RCOP No. 2087/89,
namely the tenant, filed a petition u/s 9(3) of the Act in RCOP No. 2612/89, and it is also by way of revision in CRP No. 2047/98 at the instance
of the landlords, now pending in the hands of this Court referred to above. After going through the materials available, this Court is of the
considered opinion that an order of eviction as required by the petitioners in RCOP No. 2087/89, cannot be passed for the following reasons.
In the instant case, the property is situated in No. 219, Mint Street, having a measurement of 40 sq. ft. The property originally consists of three
shops of which one of the shops is being occupied by the respondents in RCOP No. 2087/89. The petitioners therein claimed that they purchased
the property from Santhanam, and thus, they filed two petitions one in RCOP No. 2087/89 against the present respondents and the other in
RCOP No. 858/90 against two other tenants who were occupying the other two shops. As far as the other two shops were concerned in that
RCOP, those tenants took the plea that the property belonged to the temple; that they have been paying rent to the temple from the
commencement; that they have never paid any rental to Santhanam; that Santhanam was never the owner of the property; and that there was no
jural relationship between the parties. This contention has been upheld by this Court in CRP No. 2027/98 referred to above. Now, the shop
premises covered under RCOP No. 2087/89 is also a part and parcel of the very same property. The petitioners in CRP No. 3486/95 would
claim that they purchased the property from Santhanam. According to them, Santhanam was the previous owner of the property. The lower forum
has discussed in detail. There are documentary evidence to indicate that the property was actually dedicated to the temple by way of a kattalai,
and out of the income, Santhanam was performing the kattalai, as trustee. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that whether the property
belonged to the temple, or it belonged to Santhanam who has sold the property to the present landlords, could be decided by a Court of civil law
in respect of which, according to the Counsel for the temple namely the fifth respondent in RCOP No. 2612/89, a Civil Suit is already pending
adjudication. So long as the matter is decided as to who is the actual owner of the property, by a Court of civil law, the said question cannot be
gone into or decided in the rent control proceedings. That apart, in the instant case, when sufficient materials are pointed out by the appellate forum
in order to indicate that there was a kattalai, and there was a dedication, and Santhanam was performing the kattalai, it is doubtful whether
Santhanam could have got title to convey the property. But, these revision petitioners would claim that they have become the owners of the
property by way of a sale deed executed by him in the year 1989. However, this question has got to be decided by the Court of civil law.
It is true that for a few months from the purchase of the property by the landlords from Santhanam till July 1989, the rental has been paid, and
thereafter, it has not been paid. But, in the course of the earliest counter, the tenants have questioned the title of the landlords to the property,
which remains to be decided. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that it is a fit case where there is a bonafide denial of title, which could be
decided only by the Court of civil law. Apart from that, RCOP No. 2087/89 is also brought about on the ground that the petitioners therein are the
owners of the property; that the first petitioner is likely to be evicted from the property, where he is carrying on his business namely the premises in
No. 48, Devaraja Mudali Street, and hence, they require an order of eviction. As far as RCOP No. 2032/86 is concerned, the first petitioner in
RCOP No. 2087/89, who is the respondent-tenant in that RCOP, is carrying on business, and that RCOP No. 2032/86 was dismissed as above.
In such circumstances, no question of imminent threat or the first petitioner being evicted from the property would arise. Hence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that till the question of bonafide denial of title is decided by a Court of civil law, the petitioners cannot main a petition for
eviction, and it has got to be dismissed which was accordingly done by the appellate authority. Hence, the order of the appellate authority is
affirmed, and CRP No. 3486/95 fails.
As regards RCOP No. 2612/89, it was at the instance of the tenant who is the first respondent in RCOP No. 2087/89. According to him, it is
doubtful to whom the rent has got to be paid, and on the one side, the petitioners in RCOP No. 2087/89 claimed that they are the owners of the
property, and rent has to be paid to them, and on the other side, the temple is also claiming ownership to the property, and under the
circumstances, the said petition was filed. In CRP No. 3486/95, it has been held that the question as to the bonafide denial of title has got to be
decided, and till the time, the RCOP could not be maintained, and in view of the same, that petition has been dismissed as above.
Apart from the above, at present, the rent is being paid by the tenants namely the respondents in RCOP No. 2087/89, to the fifth respondent-
temple, which has been made as a party in the original RCOP between the parties. Now, from the submissions made, it could be seen that the
kattalai is being performed in the temple out of the income from the property. Those proceedings are pending before the Court of civil law and also
before the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment. Till the decision is arrived at, there cannot be any impediment for the fifth respondent-
temple in receiving the rental from the respondents in RCOP No. 2087/89 and the petitioner in RCOP No. 2612/89. Therefore, as an interim
measure, it has got to be continued till the decision is taken by the Court of civil law as to the ownership of the property. Further, the parties are
actually bound by the decision to be taken by the Court of civil law as to the ownership of the property and recovery of rental in respect of the
premises, which is covered in RCOP No. 2087/89. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the suit pending in the Court of
Civil law was dismissed for default, and the application for restoration is pending. Till the said question is decided, as it is done today, the temple is
permitted to receive and the tenants are also directed to make the payment of rental to the fifth respondent which is a temple, and it will be without
prejudice and subject to the result of the proceedings pending in the Court of civil law. In view of the above reasons, as far as CRP No. 2047/98
at the instance of the landlords in RCOP No. 2612/89 is concerned, it has got to be, accordingly, disposed of.
In the result, CRP Nos. 477/93, 3486/95 and 2027/98 are dismissed. No costs.
In the result, CRP No. 2047/98 is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.